Debunking Aryan-Dravidian division theory:

Ever since the British rule, the ‘break India’, and ‘divide India’ forces have gained big momentum. The British left India yet their ‘break and divide India’ influence hasn’t. Distorted historical records which they have left behind and which find a prominent place in our History text books continue to influence minds, generation after generation. 

The mainstream narrative, which portrays Indo-Aryan (Hindu) culture as hegemonic, racist, intolerant, rapacious, and inegalitarian, imposes an Indian version of “white guilt” on persons of Indo-Aryan ancestry, and engenders deep resentment and a desire to right historical wrongs among persons of Dravidian and “Dalit” ancestry – which manifests itself in various forms such as separatism and rejection of Hinduism and Indian culture, among others.

This makes the aryan invasion theory a powerful political tool which dovetails perfectly with the leftist, ‘secular’, and ‘liberal’ political narrative, as well as with the agendas of Dravidian nationalists, Dalit supremacists, missionaries, separatists, and other “Breaking India” forces, internal as well as external. As such, it has long been used to neatly divide India into dichotomous categories such as North and South Indians, Aryans and Dravidians, the fair skinned and the dark skinned, ‘high castes’ and Dalits, the privileged and the oppressed.

Let's debunk this myth step-by-step:

1. Why Indians still believe in Aryan-Dravidian myth?
2. How the lost river debunks the theory?
3. How do our ancient books debunk this theory?
4. How DNA samples debunk this theory?
5. What is the final result?
6. What needs to be done?

The final conclusion.

What needs to be done?

Homepage       About me    Contact me   Privacy policy

Research into India’s genetics has not been given much importance and is still in its infancy. Much of it is authored by foreign authors and conducted from outside India. This must change. India must take ownership of the research into its past, the same way China has done for itself. In order to achieve this, India must do the following.

First, India needs to develop world-class genetics research groups and establish state-of-the-art genetic testing laboratories. At present, Indian researchers have to send genetic material abroad for testing.

Second, the DNA of skeletons found in Sindhu-Sarasvati civilization sites such as Rakhigarhi must be analyzed in order to determine their ancestry and genetics. If the R1a1a haplogroup is detected in these skeletons, it will end the debate over the civilization’s origins and language, once and for all.

DNA from four such skeletons was extracted in 2015 and the material was sent to South Korea for DNA testing. The results were expected to be published in 2016, but have not yet seen the light of day. Research such as this must be prioritized and fast-tracked.

Third, the well-known technique of forensic facial reconstruction should be employed to recreate the faces of individuals whose skeletons have been found in various Sindhu-Sarasvati civilization sites, so that we may learn what our ancestors looked like. Many of these skeletons are kept in various museums throughout the country. Forensic facial reconstruction is a routine, straightforward and inexpensive technique which has existed for decades, and which was recently employed to reconstruct the face of Richard III of England. It is inexplicable that the ASI has not done this yet.

Fourth, Indian textbooks must be modernized. They must be expunged of the blatant leftist slant that has plagued them for decades. History textbooks especially need to be decontaminated. Education must be based upon hard facts and scientific evidence; it must not be allowed to be used as a political tool.

Finally, the leftist choke-hold on Indian academia must end. The leftist clique has succeeded in propagandizing generations of otherwise intelligent Indians, conditioning them to unquestioningly buy into their fringe narrative. Its institutionalized sophistry has indoctrinated countless students into supporting Pakistan’s stand on Kashmir and China’s stand on Tibet and Arunachal Pradesh, championing separatist and anarchist movements, and questioning India’s right to exist as a nation.

Education and academia must deal in knowledge, not narratives. Knowledge must remain pure, it must not be allowed to be influenced by ideology and politics. 

Previous article: What is the final result?

Next article:

More Articles:

Home

How do our ancient books debunk this theory?

Homepage       About me    Contact me   Privacy policy

India’s leftist historians and academics have for decades dismissed 'our ancient books' out of hand as “Hindutva”. This is why they decry any attempt to alter the status quo (such as modernizing history textbooks) as “fascism”, and why they have marginalized scholars such as the distinguished archeologist B. B. Lal, whose immense body of work has never been allowed to make it to Indian textbooks.
India’s “mainstream” historians dismiss the Rig Veda as mythology. This is a naive and subjective assumption that betrays an unscholarly bias on their part. If the Rig Veda is mythology, then so are Herodotus‘ fanciful and inaccurate histories. Herodotus, however, continues to be cited as a reliable historian. This smacks of double standards. The Rig Veda is certainly less fanciful than Herodotus’ Histories. Moreover, it is a veritable treasure that gives us the earliest literary insight into human society and thought. As such, it must be taken seriously.

Let's talk about the power of these books to debunk these myths and topple the Leftist regimes (which garner their votes by fooling people on the basis of caste, regionalism and language) when these truths reach the general public:

1. According to leftists, Rig Veda was written after an Aryan invasion in 1500 BCE when the Saraswati river had declined leading to the fall of Harappan civilization. However, The Sarasvati is extensively mentioned in the Rig Veda, India’s foundational literary text. It is referred to as “greatest of rivers”, “glorious”, “loudly roaring”, and “mother of floods”. This clearly refers to a mighty river in its prime, not one in decline.
2. Indian literary sources such as the Puranas, the Mahabharata and the Ramayana – which contain extensive genealogies of kings that date back thousands of years – and which mainstream scholars reject as mythology. 
3. Claims that the Dravidians belong to a separate, non-Hindu civilization are also discredited by ancient Tamil Sangam literature, which dates back to c. 300 BCE. The Mahabharata is mentioned in the oldest Tamil Sangam literature. The Vedas and the Ramayana are also mentioned in Sangam literature. Sangam literature mentions the whole of India, starting from lands to “the north of the Himalayas”, which contradicts the claim that the Dravidians were confined to the south of India.

These books prove that the Vedic civilisation did not replace the Harappan civilisation but they are both a reference to the same civilisation which existed on the banks on Indus and Saraswati.

These books also refute the eastward expansion theory of Aryans and support the westward expansion theory of Aryans.

1. Consider the Baudhayana Shrauta Sutra, it records "Amavasu migrated westward." This refers to a Vedic king called Amavasu, whose people are the Gandhari (Gandhara – Afghanistan), the Parsu (Persians) and the Aratta, who are tentatively identified as living in the vicinity of Mt. Ararat, which is located in Turkey (eastern Anatolia) and Armenia.
2. Afghanistan (Gandhara) was historically part of the Indian civilization until the Islamic invasions. The name “Persia” comes from the ancient Parshva people (an Aryan clan). The word “Parshva” is derived from the Sanskrit/Avestan (Old Persian) word “Parshu”, which means “battle-axe”. There are clear linguistic and cultural similarities between India and Persia.
3. The traditional Armenian name for Mt. Ararat is Masis. It is named after the legendary Armenian king Amasya. The name “Amasya” is linguistically related to the name “Amavasu” of the Indian king recorded in the Baudhayana Shrauta Sutra. This establishes literary evidence for the westward expansion of Indo-Aryans, via Afghanistan, to Persia, Armenia and Anatolia.
4. The ancient kingdom of Mitanni, located in Syria and Anatolia, had an Indo-Aryan Sanskrit speaking ruling class. They had Indo-Aryan names. The Mitanni belonged to the Indian-origin haplogroup R1a1a. This is clear evidence of a large-scale westward expansion of Sanskrit-speaking Indo-Aryans, and their presence as the ruling aristocracy in lands thousands of kilometers west of India. This quashes the asinine claim that the first speakers of Sanskrit were Syrians, a claim that would be laughable were it not portrayed as serious journalism in a mainstream publication.

• The primordial Rig Vedic river goddess Danu is the mother/progenitor of the Danava clan of Indo-Aryans. The Danavas revolted against the Devas, and were eventually defeated and banished. As it turns out, that was far from the end of their story. The word dānu means “fluid, drop” in Rig Vedic Sanskrit. The Avestan (old Iranian) word for “river” is “dānu”. The Scythian (Saka/Shaka) & Sarmatian words for “river” are also “dānu”. Now consider this: linguistically, the names of the European rivers Danube, Dnieper, Dniestr, Don, Donets, Dunajec, Dvina/Daugava, and Dysna are all derived from the Rig Vedic Sanskrit root word “dānu”. These rivers flow across eastern & central Europe. These rivers, all named after the Rig Vedic goddess Danu, seem to trace the gradual westward migration through Europe of the Danava clan of Rig Vedic Indo-Aryans.

So where did the Danavas eventually end up?

According to Irish & Celtic mythology, the Irish & Celtic people are descended from a mother goddess – a river goddess – called Danu. The ancient (mythological) people of Ireland are called the Tuatha Dé Danann (Old Irish: “The peoples of the goddess Danu”). The fact that R1a1a is still present in Ireland proves that people of Indo-Aryan origin settled there in the past.

Previous article: How the lost river debunks the theory?

Next article: How DNA samples debunk this theory?

More Articles:

Home